a decent gossip blog--who knew?

Ecorazzi.com offers the latest in "green gossip"--which, if you care about stalking people based on the mere fact of their celebrity, is a great way to find out who is contributing to positive lifestyle changes.

Guantanamo: The Prequel

very interesting read: While what would have served as legal precedent in establishing the Constitution as applicable in Guantanamo was vacated (there's a fun story behind that one--check out the article), on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether detainees at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can go to U.S. courts to challenge their confinement.

oh, the joys of Hannukah

Nothing like the celebrating the way in which a radical Jewish military feat was twisted into an episode of divine intervention for the purposes of religious propaganda...

climate change conference in Bali

Extra, extra. Read all about it.

Who doesn't love vocabulary?

One of my biggest pet peeves of undergrad is losing one of the most critical aspects of high school education: vocabulary and grammar. Who doesn't enjoy laundry lists of words and sentence diagramming? (no sarcasm)

I was reading the bible today (dictionary.com), and I found a new feature that I am just giddy over: word of the day. Even better--the word of the day can be emailed to subscribers daily! Oh the joys of technology!

a critical viewing of G.I. JANE

The 1997 film G.I. JANE poignantly characterizes the binary dynamic that constructs male supremacy in opposition to female inferiority historically and in modern times. Misogyny is so pervasive in culture that the film takes for granted the audience’s understanding of sexism, and begins to unfold under the assumption—not the question of—female insubordination. What is more, the film skillfully interweaves social hierarchies of race and sexuality with sex and gender and implicitly reveals military power as a white, male, heterosexual domain. The basic story line revolves around Lt. Jordon O’Neil, who is reluctantly accepted into Navy SEAL training as a trial case to establish whether or not women can keep up with the “most intensive military training known to man.” The plot unfolds in the most hyper-masculine and elitist of institutions—the United States military—to underscore the deep-seated resentment of the female in “male” space and to dramatize Lieutenant Moore’s transformation from feminine to masculine.

As soon as G.I. JANE begins, it both complicates and confirms traditional ideas of power and politics. The film revolves around the arrangements of Senator Lillian DeHaven, who is able to secure the spot of one female to undergo Navy SEAL training with the understanding that if the trial woman passes, the training will become open to women. The Senator is marked by her strong personality, her tough politics, and her no-bullshit demeanor—culturally hailed as male aggression. Thus, her whiteness and her masculine approach grant her access to power, but at the same time, the audience is constantly reminded that the Senator is a woman. In one scene, she primps her hair in the mirror, while in another she is getting her hair colored. Accordingly, the implications of female political power must be subdued by reminders that she is in fact woman and therefore, never a man. Interestingly, the trope for the Senator’s femaleness—her hair—operates to further dramatize the famous hair-buzzing scene of Lieutenant O’Neil (Demi Moore) and mark her transformation from female to male. Senator DeHaven is also significant because her political impetus to push for female inclusion in training outlines a central theme in sexual socio-politics: only women care about women’s issues. This has deeper implications, namely because women’s issues seen as separate from human rights issues or general concerns of welfare reaffirm women as “others” and “the second sex.”

Though G.I. JANE presents itself as fighting for the rights of women, it is actually only fighting for the rights of specific kinds of women. In this sense, femaleness does not merit equality. It is merely the white, heterosexual, feminine female whose social privilege grants taboo access to male terrain. The audience learns early on in the film that only certain women are acceptable. As the Senator flips through photos of different female candidates to take on the Navy, she remarks that a more muscular and thick woman might need a “chromosome check,” inferring that a real woman looks feminine, and any hint of “male” qualities jeopardizes femaleness. Another picture of a more butch woman evokes the question “Is this what you want on the cover of Newsweek?” The message is clear: appropriate gender is crucial in maintaining femaleness, and for femaleness to ever rise in status, it cannot be tarnished with such unsightly features such a strength and width. Lt. O’Neil’s gender is also underscored as the film opens to mark her as an appropriate candidate for the trial, and also to emphasize her crossing over into maleness as the film progresses. The audience meets O’Neil wearing pearl earrings, a flawless bun, and gentle hues of makeup. When the audience learns at the end of the film that Senator DeHaven never expected or wanted O’Neil to succeed, but rather staged the attempt as a political ploy, DeHaven tells O’Neil that she does not really want the conditions of service, or to have to live in “third-world” countries. Implicit in her statement is the picture of O’Neil has a particular form of feminine that can not be outside in the rugged, but must be protected in appropriate realms of femaleness. In the case of the military, however, female territory can include intelligence operations, where it is suggested O’Neil returns. In this sense, it is not O’Neil’s mind that is degraded, it is specifically her body—her marker of femaleness—that insubordinates her.

Like femininity, the concept of masculinity is also heavily regulated in the film. On the one hand, G.I. JANE would like the viewer to think that the army is for men, but it is actually only for a particular hegemonic version of men. In one scene, the Master Chief calls his trainees “pencil dicks” when they are not performing up to his standards. Embedded within this insult, the audience learns that the military man is only as good as his penis. Men with inappropriately-sized phalluses do not have the goods to prove themselves un-female. This again casts women as the other. A second insult used in the film is “pretty boy.” Although the privileged version of a woman is one who is “feminine” and therefore “pretty”, as soon as this is projected onto a male, he is ridiculed, implicitly labeling him woman and/or gay. The policed dichotomy of male/female is ironic because it allows one idealized form as femaleness, but those same qualities are actually abhorrent when placed on male bodies. In this way, femaleness threatens what it means to be male, and compromises the power of maleness.

As expected in any context heavily infused with themes of gender and sex, sexuality plays a significant role in the film. The audience quickly learns that in the heterosexist landscape of the film, sexual deviance is grounds for ridicule and dismissal. When Senator DeHaven first interviews Lt. O’Neil to take on the trial position, the Senator asks if she “has a man.” She then unabashedly elaborates that if she were not heterosexual, the situation would blow up in their faces. This first dialogue discussing sexuality foreshadows the later twist in the plot where, in order to deal with O’Neil’s success in training, she is framed as a lesbian and dismissed on grounds of inappropriate behavior. While the military’s homophobia can at least be expected in a film seeking to portray its bigotry and exclusionary politics, even O’Neil herself participates in homophobia, angered that Senator DeHaven, who had staged the photos, would dare “smear” her “good name.” The audience learns from this that sexual minorities are an abomination. What is more, after O’Neil makes her transition into maleness, she shifts the power dynamic with her superior in a scene where they are engaged in an intense physical fight by saying “suck my dick.” All of her comrades cheer her on, revealing two factors: primarily, O’Neil now legitimately has a dick, because she has become a man. Secondly, a man sucking another man’s dick is the greatest insult.

Aside from sexuality, film visits the idea of race by talking about it, and by not talking about it. A fellow black trainee in the Navy SEAL training explains, in defense of O’Neil, that his grandfather could not serve to protect his country in WWII because of the color of his skin. He then tells O’Neil that she is the “new nigger on the block.” The comparison of black and female exclusion bears historical relevance, as abolitionism and first wave of feminism existed contemporaneously and fed off one another. It was also African American males who won the ballot before women, and who similarly had access to the Navy before women. This recognition of the civil rights movement is all well and good, but at the same time, G.I. Jane features a limited handful of token black characters, and portrays no other minority. It is basically a landscape of whiteness that, despite its recognition of minority oppression, still remains a hegemonic microcosm of race.

Viewed in harmony, the complexities of sex, gender, sexuality and race unfold in this movie to highlight O’Neil’s transition from a white, straight, female to a white, straight man. She first arrives at her training with her hair in a bun, placed in separate quarters, and training as an “other.” Her frustrations culminate to a point of intolerance, where she demands equal treatment. It is at this moment the audience sees her shaving her head, doing one-armed push ups, and sharing space with males. While in the beginning, the other men were uncomfortable by her tampons, later the audience watches as the doctor explains amenorrhea. While early on in the film, the audience understands white, male military power through the phallic cigar-smoking of anyone in uniform, by the time O’Neil is dismissed for being too successful, and thus too masculine, she too smokes a cigar on the patio. Accordingly, this is a film about privilege—who has it, who does not, and why. G.I. JANE presents itself as a film about men and women, but it is really about white, heteronormative men and women. It is a particular version of maleness that has the privilege and power of the United States military, and only a particular version of femaleness can dare take on a phallus and win inclusion.

government rating health of food in grocery stores?

New food rating system coming soon...

I don't know how I feel about this--I actually think it is a bad idea. While the overall point seems sensible (rating the health of foods, because amidst labels like "smart choice," many consumers are confused)--this is not teaching shoppers how to make productive lifestyle choices for themselves, the food pyramid is a bias dietary guide, low-calorie and healthy are conflated in ways that are not sane, and lastly, this is just fuel for the "obesity epidemic."

It is hard for me to understand how a literate person with moderate education cannot grapple nutritional content. Actually, as long as you are literate, have common sense, and some life experience, you should be fine. But I guess the truth is, most Americans don't know how to feed themselves in optimal ways. At the same time, I can only imagine that consumers will blindly consume products based on these news ratings, and not because they have learned anything about health and their bodies.

On that same token, in the age of corporate influence and lobby power, I can hardly see how anything but intense scrutiny can ensure the accountability of labels--and I doubt consumers or any federal oversight would accomplish this. I guess this is just begging for another watchdog organization.

Also, what will these ratings be based on? The food pyramid is sort of this mythical map of health that is actually heavily swayed by the meat industry. In reality, you don't need to eat animals and all of their products to be healthy. But we live in a country that just wants you to be straight and eat meat, so I guess that shouldn't come as a surprise.

What I am most concerned about is the conflation between calories and health, which may at times overlap, but are not synonymous! If any products with synthetic sugars are given high health ratings, I am leaving the country. That is bull shit. Fake sugar is poison.

Call me crazy, but the idea that the government could have a large influence in what we put in our bodies is creepy...

My last qualm is that this is all fuel for the fallacy of the obesity epidemic. Maybe over-eating in this country is a problem, but there is not an obesity epidemic for the love of science. What is defined as obesity is seriously skewed, the public perception of what a healthy body looks like is very off-kilter, and the way we measure weight (BMI) is totally inadequate. Check out this BMI slide show from Shapely Prose for a demonstration. The multi-billion dollar diet industry has a heavy investment in America's fat phobia, and that is not going to get any better if we continue to substitute questionable labels with actual knowledge.

On the up side, though, I will concede that perhaps consumers will finally realize what shit they are eating when they see all of the pathetic scores that will undoubtedly be saturating the market. If we rate and commodify health, that would likely serve as incentive for businesses to make better food. Let's just hope the standards are legitimate.

fat and unhealthy are not synonymous

I recently found Shapely Prose, a great blog on fat acceptance. In one post, she outlines ten principles on health and fat that everyone should read--namely that the two are not synonymous. (Note: I copy and pasted this from her site, so the links are not working. If you want to access one of the hyperlinks below, view the post from its actual source)

1. Weight itself is not a health problem, except in the most extreme cases (i.e., being underweight or so fat you’re immobilized). In fact, fat people live longer than thin people and are more likely to survive cardiac events, and some studies have shown that fat can protect against “infections, cancer, lung disease, heart disease, osteoporosis, anemia, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis and type 2 diabetes.” Yeah, you read that right: even the goddamned diabetes. Now, I’m not saying we should all go out and get fat for our health (which we wouldn’t be able to do anyway, because no one knows how to make a naturally thin person fat any more than they know how to make a naturally fat person thin; see point 4), but I’m definitely saying obesity research is turning up surprising information all the time — much of which goes ignored by the media — and people who give a damn about critical thinking would be foolish to accept the party line on fat. Just because you’ve heard over and over and over that fat! kills! doesn’t mean it’s true. It just means that people in this culture really love saying it.

2. Poor nutrition and a sedentary lifestyle do cause health problems, in people of all sizes. This is why it’s so fucking crucial to separate the concept of “obesity” from “eating crap and not exercising.” The two are simply not synonymous — not even close — and it’s not only incredibly offensive but dangerous for thin people to keep pretending that they are. There are thin people who eat crap and don’t exercise — and are thus putting their health at risk — and there are fat people who treat their bodies very well but remain fat. Really truly.

3. What’s more, those groups do not represent anomalies; no one has proven that fat people generally eat more or exercise less than thin people. Period. And believe me, they’ve tried. (Gina Kolata’s new book, Rethinking Thin, is an outstanding source for more on that point.)

4. Diets don’t work. No, really, not even if you don’t call them diets. If you want to tell me about how YOUR diet totally worked, do me a favor and wait until you’ve kept all the weight off for five years. Not one year, not four years, five years. And if you’ve kept it off for that long, congratulations. You’re literally a freak of nature.

5. Given that diets don’t work in the long-term for the vast, vast majority of people, even if obesity in and of itself were a health crisis, how the fuck would you propose we solve it?

6. Most fat people have already dieted repeatedly. And sadly, it’s likely that the dieting will cause them more health problems than the fat.

7. Human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Fat people are human beings.

8. Even fat people who are unhealthy still deserve dignity and respect. Still human beings. See how that works?

9. In any case, shaming teh fatties for being “unhealthy” doesn’t fucking help. If shame made people thin, there wouldn’t be a fat person in this country, trust me. I wish I could remember who said this, ’cause it’s one of my favorite quotes of all time: “You cannot hate people for their own good.”

10. If you scratch an article on the obesity! crisis! you will almost always find a press release from a company that’s developing a weight loss drug — or from a “research group” that’s funded by such companies.

So let’s just be clear that if you want to tell me fat people are disgusting and unhealthy in comments, all I’m gonna do is point you back to this post. And/or point you to other posts from my blog, or Junkfood Science, or one of my favorite fat bloggers, and/or bombard you with quotes from the aforementioned Gina Kolata, or Paul Campos, or J. Eric Oliver, or Michael Gard and Jan Wright, or Glenn Gaesser, or Marilyn Wann, or Laura Fraser. Seriously, you don’t even want to get me fucking started.

Oh, also? BMI is complete horseshit.

nutritional fanaticism

I have been in a mental frenzy this week because my energy level is really low, I feel nauseated, my head hurts, my sleeping is off--so clearly I must have some sort of nutritional deficit. I frantically recall the last time I had my blood work done for this very reason (2 months ago), and before that (2 months ago), and before that (2 months ago)...and I could go on. Last week, I paid 5 medical bills. Yes, FIVE. I have the health care routine of a senior citizen. (By the way, every time I come out well and healthy)

So amidst my compulsive google searches and related inquiries, I finally stopped, took a moment, and asked myself, WHAT THE FUCK?

Hunter-gatherers and nomads and cave people did not have food pyramids, had no idea what a mineral was, did not have a continuous and well-rounded dietary repertoire, went through periods of famine and what not--and we somehow evolved into where we are today. Like Neanderthals were getting all of their omegas, and our brains continued to develop!

It really is a recent historical luxury and phenomenon that one can sit and contemplate how much B12 and vitamin fuck-me-in-the-ass one receives daily. I feel like this has created entirely new paradigms of health and wellness that never existed before.

I mean, really, life apparently went on for millions of years without daily supplements.

So I am repeating this to myself to placate my unrelenting concerns over my own physical health. The funny thing is that I am so sure that this is FINALLY it, I ACTUALLY have something really wrong--I have NEVER felt this way before. But after explaining my symptoms to Monika, she just replied casually, "You're nervous."

Bewildered, I ask her, "You feel these same XYZ symptoms?"

Again, "Yeah, when I'm nervous."

I think it is really hard for me to accept mental and emotional strain on the body--I am always searching for some physical or empirical reason for everything.

control control with more control

You know, it just gets my goat every time when I reflect on how, in order to cope with my obsession over control and related dysfunctional compulsions and behaviors, I have to exercise even MORE control.

I have to control my need to control. hahahahah. I have to control my out-of-control need to control. Even better.

What amuses me even more is that I have finally mastered the technique! Now every time I control my out-of-control control, I a) reflect on the irony, and b) wonder if I am ever really winning, since it is still all about control.

c'est la vie

why veganism? MEET YOUR MEAT

I realize that in a culture of sound bytes, 13 minutes may seem like an eternity. But please give this serious consideration. I cannot watch this without dry heaving and/or crying.



Interestingly, although this clip POIGNANTLY depicts animal cruelty and torture in egg and milk production, it still advocates vegetarianism as opposed to veganism. I suppose it's the political viability of baby steps...

UN mis-counts HIV cases by millions

U.N. Overstated H.I.V. Cases by Millions

Not like switching the numbers from 33.2 million from the 39.5 million changes the magnitude of the problem...